Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!husc6!ddl
From: ddl@husc6.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Public Domain Yacc (Important)
Message-ID: <1170@husc6.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 4-Feb-87 01:43:37 EST
Article-I.D.: husc6.1170
Posted: Wed Feb  4 01:43:37 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Feb-87 06:43:48 EST
References: <142@ems.UUCP>
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge MA
Lines: 35

In article <142@ems.UUCP>, mark@ems.UUCP (Mark H. Colburn) writes:
> 
> 	Sigh!  I spent a week tracking down the person who I got the 
> 	YACC sources from, just to make sure that the source was indeed 
> 	in the public domain before I posted it.  I really did, I tried.  
> 	He lied.
> 
> 	I got a message from an individual on the net who compared the
> 	source to the AT&T distribution.  He said that the code looked 
> 	a lot like the AT&T version.  I decided that I had best make 
> 	sure that the source was or was not AT&T proprietary.

	Just because it looks like the AT&T source doesn't mean it is
a derivative work.  It was my impression that there was a public domain
yacc which was derived from the same source as the AT&T yacc--but not
FROM the AT&T yacc.  This yacc (and a lex) are being sold for the IBM
PC by some small company and the code also looks a lot like AT&T yacc.
	Now the point of all this is that we should avoid setting a
dangerous precedent:  AT&T's proprietary rights (if any) should not
be allowed to extend retroactively to code that they have acquired
elsewhere!  This is a great way to keep a monopoly on software, but
I don't *think* it makes legal sense.  If it does, I should grab
as much public domain code as I can and start legal action against
everyone else using it and and...
	In any case, it seems to me that once something has been
distributed in this way the proprietary status (if any) is kind of
lost.  Assuming that this yacc is indeed AT&T's yacc, can AT&T really
prosecute everyone who picks up a copy from the posting?  Don't they
have to show that they made some attempt to maintain secrecy?  Even
if they did (did they?) isn't there something about one person taking
in good faith some information and thereby removing its proprietary
status?  Can anyone clarify this?

					Dan Lanciani
					ddl@harvard.*